ArticleEcoHealth2026
Longitudinal Survey of Pathogenic Leptospira Species at a Major Park in Sydney, Australia.
Article in EcoHealth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Since leptospirosis' re-emergence in Sydney, Australia, concerns about the risk of exposure to pathogenic Leptospira species at urban parks have risen. The current longitudinal environmental survey investigated the temporal detection of pathogenic Leptospira at a major recreational park and explored whether the presence of a flying-fox (Pteropus spp.) camp affects soil Leptospira detection. From February to October 2024, environmental samples and voided faecal samples (flying-fox faeces, and goose faeces as controls) were collected from Centennial Park, Sydney. The samples were tested by a diagnostic 16S rRNA TaqMan quantitative PCR (qPCR) assay, and time series of the monthly minimum cycle threshold (Ct) values were generated to assess cross-correlation. Over the nine-month study period, pathogenic Leptospira was consistently detected in soil and water samples. Despite not being a known reservoir of Leptospira, three voided goose faecal samples tested qPCR-positive (Ct 38.22-38.84). There was no difference in qPCR results of soil collected from the flying-fox camp and another nearby location. The water Ct time series was not correlated with monthly precipitation, but was positively cross-correlated with the Ct time series of soil collected at the flying-fox camp one month prior. Overall, the results suggested temporal ubiquity of pathogenic Leptospira at this park. No direct evidence of flying-foxes' contribution to the environmental Leptospira burden at the park was uncovered, but mechanical movement of Leptospira between soil and water, and the role of birds as mechanical vectors, need further research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42749980What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.